Sunday, December 21, 2014

There are four non-toxic gases-of-life in Earth’s protective atmospheric blanket. None should be captured and buried. The most abundant is nitrogen – 78%. If there was no nitrogen there would be no plant or animal protein and a very different world.

Next most abundant is oxygen – 21%. Without oxygen most of today’s animal life would die within

minutes. Both nitrogen and oxygen can moderate climate by absorbing surface heat and transferring it aloft by convection.

Then comes marvellous water, whose vapour comprises a variable 0.1 - 4% of the atmosphere, while liquid water fills the oceans, lakes and rivers that cover 70% of Earth’s surface and makes all clouds, snow and ice. Water vapour is Earth’s most effective “Greenhouse gas”, except in the very dry air at the poles. Water and water vapour moderate the extremes of temperature on Earth, cooling the hot tropics by evaporation and convection and, by delaying the loss of surface heat, often keep nights warmer than they would otherwise be.

The rarest gas-of-life is carbon dioxide with just 0.04% (400 ppm) of the atmosphere - a tiny amount which is almost the lowest it has ever been in the long history of the planet. Most life probably evolved at levels of 1,000 ppm or more and the dinosaurs flourished in air with 1,800 ppm of CO2. However, this trace gas provides the building blocks for all life on Earth. Without carbon dioxide all plants would die, quickly followed by all animals. It is also a temperature moderating “Greenhouse gas” but generally less effective than water vapour.

Earth’s biosphere is often stressed by having insufficient natural supplies of the two rarest of these gases of life – water vapour and carbon dioxide. In particular, plant life would benefit from considerably more carbon dioxide than is currently present in the atmosphere – at 150 ppm plant growth ceases, at 2,000 ppm (five times current levels) plants thrive; and 400 million years ago, life flourished with 4,500 ppm CO2. US submariners live comfortably in air with 5,000 ppm and human
lungs exhale air with about 45,000 ppm CO2.

Unfortunately, natural processes are continually capturing the rarest gas of life, carbon dioxide, and burying its contained carbon under oceans and lakes. Earth is composed mainly of igneous rocks – molten magmas at depth and solid igneous rocks like basalt, granite and gabbro near the surface.

Natural processes of erosion are continually degrading these primary rocks, producing gravel, sand, silt and clay which are moved via rivers towards the sea.

Floods also sweep dead plant and animal material into lakes and oceans. As these suspended erosion products meet still water, the solid materials are deposited as sandstones, shales and carbonaceous beds. This process removes carbon dioxide from the biosphere, burying it in the lithosphere.

Carbon dioxide is very soluble in rain and surface water, forming carbonic acid which can react with minerals in rocks and water-borne sediments - this forms carbonates which settle to the floor of the oceans as extensive beds of marl, limestone, dolomite and magnesite. Much carbonate is also tied up in corals, shells and animal skeletons, much of which gets buried when the animal dies. This natural process of capture and burial has the greatest effect on the rarest gas of life - carbon dioxide.

Volcanism can release carbon dioxide, methane and other hydrocarbons from buried deposits. The volcanic heat drives volatile gases from strata such as coal seams, limestones, oil shales and methane biosphere. Submarine volcanoes can also warm the ocean, thus driving off some of the ocean’s vast store of dissolved carbon dioxide. Without this return segment of the carbon cycle, carbon dioxide levels would sink inexorably to levels unable to support healthy plant growth.

clathrates, thus returning buried carbon compounds to the

However, in a piece of serendipity, man’s use of hydrocarbons and carbonate rocks is returning a small part of the naturally sequestered carbon dioxide to the biosphere which needs it urgently. Hopefully this may also delay Earth’s inevitable return to the recurring ice age episodes typical of the era in which we live.

The Way I See It......those advocating “Carbon Capture and Burial” want humans to waste energy to capture, compress, pump and bury valuable carbon dioxide. They have no concern for life on earth, and their real aim is to make the use of carbon fuels like coal, oil and gas so expensive that all industrial activity will shrink, thus restricting the footprint of pesky industrious humans on the earth.
The danger is in the Environmental Defence Fund, any Green political party, Green Peace, the World Wildlife Fund, and specifically Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Karl Kruszeinicki, David Suzuki, Clive Hamilton, Michael Mann (hockey-stick man), James Hansen, etc. They are the real enemies of the biosphere, particularly the human component of it.

On a tense Tuesday morning, at 2.10am, 5 days ago, (Dec 16th) three gunshots rang out in rapid succession - followed by a volley of gun fire - bringing to an end the 16 hour siege of the Lindt Café with 13 hostages, which had terrified the nation and captured the attention of the world. As building fire alarms rang out a team of about six heavily armed tactical response police officers began throwing what appeared to be stun hand-grenades into the building. Just minutes before a hostage had come running out from the building with his hands raised in the air, telling police things were ''reaching a head.''

Police confirmed three people had been killed, including Muslim gunman Man Haron Monis, 50, who was pronounced dead when he arrived at hospital. Those dead included the manager of the Lindt Coffee Café, Tori Johnson 34, and a 38 year-old lawyer and mother-of-three, Katrina Dawson.

It
would be easy to dismiss Man Haron Monis as a clown. He was certainly a slimy
murderer. But his life as an angry pest who could not stomach his own failure
and imminent downfall is a good analogy for aspects of Islamism, which is
fundamentally an ideology of resentful humiliation, unable to accept the
reality of the weak place of Islamic civilization and determined to act
destructively, often self-destructively, believing domination is the birthright
of the doctrine.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister stated: ''Of course Monis is not representative of most Muslims, who are
horrified by the events, but it would be foolish to dismiss the attack as
unrelated to Islamic terrorism, especially as we have the dubious honour of
having among the highest recruits per capita to Islamic State.''

Man Haron Monis couldn’t have
done more to make the deaf hear that the terror he unleashed in Sydney was in
the name of Islam.

Some of those who respond to Muslim terrorism by
demanding more sympathy for Muslims are well-meaning. Others remind me
uncomfortably of the adage: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Usually the Muslims-fear-backlash crowd at least waits till the terrorist
atrocity is over. In this case

Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson

the desiccated multicultural saps launched
the #I’llRideWithYou campaign even as the siege was still ongoing - while
Katrina and Tori were still alive. Muslims are not the victims
here. Ms Dawson and Mr Johnson are
the victims. And yet the urge to usher Muslims into the victim chair and
massage their tender sensibilities is now so reflexive the narcissists on
Twitter don’t even have the good taste to wait till the siege is over and the
corpse count is known.

Individual acts of kindness ... are lovely. But when they mutate into
Twitter hashtag campaigns they acquire a smug, bullying sanctimoniousness which
not only demeans the original act but which, worse, skews the debate about
Islamism.

One of the more notable facts about Islamist terror incidents in the
West ... is how very little they have changed public attitudes to Muslims in
general ... I’m sure you are lovely and caring and bloody great, all you #Illridewithyou luvvies. But you’re
also — in my experience — so delighted by your own sensitivity, so certain that
you hold the moral high ground that you feel it enables you to duck all
responsibility for engaging with the Islamism ­problem seriously.I don’t know how much more
explicit Monis could have been.

And I don’t know how more
wilfully deaf some people can be.

Here’s a good example of our
Media in denial.A very impressive
Political Correct evasion by The Age, which in this
entire report on the
tragic Sydney hostage-taking does not mention “Islam” or “Muslim” once. Even
when noting the gunman was a “cleric” does The Age say of which faith and further implies he is obviously a lone terrorist not connected to any group.

Similar squeamishness and self-censorship has been evident in much reporting on mass immigration, crime rates in some ethnic communities and the widespread rorting of our refugee intake. Monis, a fake refugee but real cleric and extremist, was the beneficiary of this self-censorship up to the moment he killed two Australians - Australians I believe deserved better warning from our media.

The Way I See It.......Monis is a classic case study of why Australia needs to have probationary conditions applied to the residence status and then citizenship granted to immigrants, refugees and asylum-seekers…

Now for the cover-up. Australians are entitled to know, but are highly unlikely to be told, who were the lawyers and officials who advocated that Man Haron Monis be allowed to live in Australia, and then granted citizenship, despite red flag after red flag that he was trouble…

Right at the start, in 1996, when Monis claimed political asylum, the Iranian authorities made it clear that he had been charged with multiple counts of theft that had nothing to do with either political persecution or capital crimes. The Iranian foreign ministry reiterated this week that his psychological instability and criminal charges were known to Australian officials when they granted him asylum status.

Within months, Monis had chained himself to the front gate of state Parliament in Macquarie Street in a political protest. He was later given citizenship. Self-described cleric, Man Maron Monis, 50, first came to attention of police when he penned poisonous letters to the family of dead Australian soldiers.

Last year he was charged with being an accessory to the murder of his ex-wife and mother of two.
And most recently, he was charged with more than 50 allegations of indecent and sexual assault relating to time allegedly spent as a self-proclaimed “spiritual healer” who dealt with black magic at a premises in western Sydney more than a decade ago.

Monis, who has also gone by the names of Sheikh Haron and Mohammad Hassan Manteghi, was born in Iran and most recently has been living at Bexley North in Sydney’s south. He gleaned from over $64,000 in Legal Aid during that time to fight his many convictions.

With that record and those allegations, he was on bail? WHY ???

With instability growing in the Muslim world, the tacit policy of open borders, advocated by the Greens and the churches, would have seen the 50,000 people who bypassed Australian immigration under Labor grow exponentially. None of the idiot Greens or the churches offer structures setting limits, They don't mind 100,000 undocumented arrivals, or 200,000, or 500,000. Only ''compassion withoutlimits'' is their mantra. This has been sensibly and emphatically rejected by the electorate.

Saturday, December 6, 2014

All of today’s Australians (even the Aboriginal people) are either migrants, or descended from people who migrated here from overseas. From the founding of the modern Australian State at Federation, until the early 1970’s, the basis of our immigration policy was more or less the same as that of the United States.

This was articulated clearly in the following letter from President Theodore Roosevelt to the American Defense Society:

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here.

“Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

This policy worked because our earliest immigrants worked hard to become Australians. The great majority were from Europe and the UK, whose cultures were quite similar to ours. Cultural harmony is no problem with harmonious cultures. Children of immigrants were almost indistinguishable from their school mates.

These immigrants turned Australia into one of the most prosperous and successful countries in the world. Sometime between the early 1970s and the early 1990s however, every “Western” nation around the world (excluding wealthy “non Western” countries such as Japan) decided to implement a previously unheard of doctrine known as multiculturalism.

In Australia, this policy was introduced in 1973 by controversial Whitlam Minister and suspected Mafia collaborator Al Grassby. The public was never consulted about this policy, and the concept of “culture” was never defined. If you have ever been to a “cultural” festival or celebration, you
most likely have found it full of exotic spicy foods, ethnic people doing lively, interesting dances and wearing unusual and brightly coloured clothing. When we hear the term “culture” these days, this is what immediately springs to mind. If this were all that was meant by the term “culture”, then a multicultural human society might exist in peace and harmony. What is there NOT to like about that?

However, the flaws in this policy come into stark relief when we understand the deeper meaning of the word “culture”. This meaning is far less visible and will never be on display at any “cultural” festival, but is in fact, far more important. Culture in its deepest sense, refers to the set of values which are used by a society to determine its ethics. It is those things which a society, as a whole, considers to be right or wrong.

An example: Hindus consider it very wrong to kill a cow, whereas most Westerners are happy to enjoy a nice rump steak. For this reason, India may have laws outlawing the killing of cows, whilst we have no such law. This has nothing to do with ethnicity or race. If you or I had grown up in a Hindu family in India then we would also probably consider killing a cow to be morally wrong. This is the basis of any culture, a set of shared beliefs in what constitutes right and wrong which are shared by one group but not another.

These values are passed on from one generation to the next by parents, religious institutions, media, schools, peers and other institutions. Each of the different cultures has its own concept of right and wrong. There is no universal definition of what is right and what is wrong. We in the West tend to rather arrogantly assume that the Ten Commandments’ principles of not to kill, steal, cheat, or lie etc. exist in every culture but this is demonstrably not true.

In the past (and probably even today in remote areas) there have been warrior societies where killing was considered a rite of passage for all males. The Vikings were somewhat famous for glorifying rape, pillage and plunder and there are numerous examples of cultures which considered particular Western (Judeo/Christian based) “sins” to be virtues.

Going back to our original example, we cannot say that all Westerners will agree to killing cows for food, or that no Hindus will ever have a sneaky T-bone steak. However most Hindus would consider eating beef to be “wrong” and for most Westerners it is "OK". The doctrine of “multiculturalism” as opposed to “multi-ethnicity,” dictates that groups of people with different cultures will live in one society and retain their culture, rather than trying to assimilate into the culture of the host nation.

The first problem with this lies in the fact that the laws which a society makes, and agrees to be governed by, are simply an extension of the culture of that society.

So what happens when two very different cultures live under a single set of laws? How can you keep the Hindus happy if you allow the killing of cows and yet how can you ban it without upsetting Westerners who want to eat beef?

What are the options in this situation?
1. Override the Hindus and keep the Westerners happy.
2. Override the Westerners and keep the Hindus happy.
3. Persuade the Hindus to accept the culture of their new place of residence.
4. Make two or more sets of laws for people depending on their particular culture.
5. Separate the two groups and put a border between them with separate rules for each.

Now the first two options are really only one, the majority tends to override the minority in a democracy. Of course whilst there is a huge majority of one particular culture the smaller one has to fit in with, or assimilate into, the host culture. In other words, the culture of the group with the most political power will be enforced and members of the minor culture just have to grin and bear it (unless their numbers grow to a point where they can wield enough political power to change things).

Option three is the doctrine of assimilation which used to hold sway in most Western countries and still does in the rest of the world. The reasoning behind it is that if someone wishes to be a part of your society, then they should be willing to make an effort to adopt the culture which has shaped that society. If they do not wish to do so then why did they come in the first place? This was Theodore Roosevelt’s option. (Note: Hindus have the highest peaceful and assimilation rate in most countries.)

The doctrine of “multiculturalism” however views this as wrong. It stupidly insists that migrants coming into a nation should not be compelled to abandon their original culture, but should instead be encouraged to retain it (and the costs of doing so should be borne by citizens of the host country).
Sometimes however, the cultural differences are much worse than just "sacred cows". Sometimes, the differences lie in paedophilia, female genital mutilation, the killing of homosexuals, child marriage, and grotesque punishments.

The inevitable consequence of this approach is that the law of the land will need to be altered in some way, to accommodate the culture of the new migrants. This could either be a whole new set of laws, or a series of exemptions based upon the cultural preferences of different citizens.

A recent example from Geelong Victoria:
Registered sex offender, Ali Jaffari, an Afghani immigrant, accused of attempted child-stealing (his third serious offence), had all charges against him dropped after a Magistrate told prosecutors in a pre-trial hearing he would have trouble finding Jaffari guilty. Magistrate Ron Saines said if he was hearing the matter, he would have reasonable doubt, citing ‘cultural differences’ as one factor, which would result in the charges being dismissed. Ali roamed free to offend again (he said "is OK in my country") until he was later caught with violent child porn on his computer, and was eventually deported.

This second option is being used for Muslims in the UK, who now have Sharia courts all around that

country. The problem with this solution is that it violates two very important principles, which are the bedrocks of Western society, namely the rule of law, i.e. one law for all, and the principle of equality which underpins it.

Before the doctrine of Multiculturalism came along, Western Governments were compelled to treat each of their citizens equally. Nowadays, the way judges apply the law, depends to a varying extent on such things as what colour skin you have, where you were born, even what culture or ethnicity you would like to belong to.

It is difficult enough to persuade people to follow the law at the best of times, but without the rule of law, how can a society gain respect for its legal system? When people look around and see others being allowed to break laws by which they are bound, they will naturally lose respect for the whole legal process and society degenerates into a kind of tribal free-for-all.

This seems to be the way that Europe is heading, with areas in the UK, France and Germany being declared as being under Islamic (Sharia) Law. Sadly, parts of Western Sydney now seem to be on the same path. In effect, we are defaulting to option four, reverting to separate mini nations with their own borders and laws. Many of the original suburban inhabitants are now unwelcome in their own suburb and choose, or are forced, to leave. Their suburb is no longer "part of Australia". All we will have achieved by doing this will be the fracturing of what were once powerful, prosperous and peaceful societies. Surely this outcome was predictable when the multicultural experiment began, any non-socialist idiot Lefty could've figured that one out.

The Way I See It......the call for "cultural harmony" is like mixing oil and water. Shake the mix until you are blue in the face and it just separates right out again. Just a few minutes studying European history would suggest that cultural harmony is an impossible fantasy for any community with incompatible cultures.

That does not mean that we should not welcome people who will assimilate, and reject former beliefs and practices, especially those which deny basic human rights, equality, the rule of law and democracy. If they can do this, it should be a much easier step to be another great Aussie citizen.

The saddest aspect of all this, is that the leaders of our communities, whose very job it is to debate policies such as these, have all been intimidated into silence by the threat of being branded as "racists" and "bigots". In order for this to have happened, an even more important principle had to be breached, namely the principle of freedom of speech, but can be restored by making Roosevelt's speech firmly imbedded into every Immigration Policy in every country.

Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.

Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and DavidFork in applied physics. These aren't guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or "technology" of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company. The duo were employed at Google on the RE project, which sought to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than coal.

The project ''RE''(Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal) was a failure, and Google closed it down after four years. Now, Koningstein and Fork have explained the conclusions they came to after a lengthy period of applying their considerable technological expertise to renewables, in an article posted at IEEE Spectrum. The two men write:

''At the start of RE we had high hopes but found that renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.''

One should note that
Koningstein and Fork aren't alone. Whenever somebody with a decent grasp of maths and physics looks into the idea of a fully renewables-powered civilised future for the human race with a reasonably open mind, they normally come to the conclusion that it simply isn't feasible. Merely generating the relatively small proportion of our energy that we consume today in the form of electricity is already an insuperably difficult task for renewables: generating huge amounts more on top to carry out the tasks we do today using fossil-fuelled heat isn't even vaguely plausible.

Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage, etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms - and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.

In reality, well before any such stage was reached, energy would become horrifyingly expensive - which means that everything would become horrifyingly expensive (even the present well-under-one-per-cent renewables level in the UK has pushed up utility bills very considerably). This in turn means that everyone would become miserably poor and economic growth would cease (the more honest hardline greens admit this openly).

That, however, means that such expensive luxuries as welfare states and pensioners, proper healthcare (watch out for that pandemic), reasonable public services, affordable manufactured goods and transport, decent personal hygiene, space programmes (watch out for the meteor!) etc etc would all have to go - none of those things are sustainable without economic growth.

The Way I See It......nobody's up for that. And yet, stalwart environmentalists like Koningstein and Fork - and many others - remain convinced that the dangers of carbon-driven warming are real.Indeed the pair reference the famous NASA boffin Dr James Hansen, who is more or less the daddy of modern global warming fears, and say like him that ''we must move not just to lessened but to zero carbon emissions'' (and on top of that, suck a whole lot of CO2 out of the air by such means as planting forests). So, I ask these Greenie idiots, how is this to be done especially when the BioMass of the planet is lapping up this increased CO2 with increased growth.? Dead Silence !UPDATE: The wind industry in Australia is in full-scale panic because the Senate’s cross-benchers (who hold the balance of power in the Upper House) have won Coalition support for their Inquiry into the great wind power fraud: which will turn a (long-overdue) blowtorch on the biggest rort in Australian history.

In Canada: Professor Ross McKitrick, from Ontario, has been slamming the great wind power fraud for years now: his analysis is detailed, pointed and cuts across the lies and half-truths peddled by the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers. Ross points to the glaringly obvious when he says that “wind turbines don’t run on wind, they run on subsidies” Ross and fellow energy market expert, Tom Adams put together a detailed study that shows how the true and hidden costs of wind power – including the massive subsidies upon which the whole stinking rort depends – are sending Ontario’s power prices through the roof. No surprises there, as many other countries who blindly invested in these horrible machines have found out as well.

Before Ferguson exploded in reaction to the August shooting of the black thief-thug teen Michael Brown (photo right) by police officer Darren Wilson, the St. Louis police chief raised eyebrowswhen he called for the use of drones to monitor high-crime areas so as ''not endanger our officers to those living in those rat's-nests.''. Of course, that was deemed a racist-profiling attitude and was dismissed.

The proposal was a response to what St. Louis police authorities called ''Subhuman, Antisocial, UrbanTerrorist'' behavior by criminals. St. Louis also is home of the notorious “Knockout Game,” a random but racially motivated assault that has claimed at least six lives.

St. Louis is 44 per cent White and 49 per cent Black, but statistics shows a racial imbalance in crime. Based on the city’sofficial crime data for 2012— the most recent year which data are available — 97.6 per cent of those arrested for murder were black and 2.4 per cent were white. More than 82 per cent of those arrested for serious crimes like murder, aggravated assault and larceny were black, while just 17.5 per cent arrested were white.

Black males in St. Louis were responsible for the vast majority (63.5 percent) of crimes committed. Other groups contribute significantly less to the serious crimes in St. Louis. White males made up 17 per cent of arrests, black females were 14 per cent of arrests and white females only 5.3 per cent of arrests.

There are other strange imbalances in arrests: Black females were arrested for 14 murders compared with three white males arrested for murder. Black females were arrested for more robberies, aggravated assaults and larcenies than white males. These are just a few of the lowlights in a city on the verge of becoming, as U.S. News said, the MOST DANGEROUS CITYin America.

Consider one violent night in St. Louis last June when 18 people were shot in seven different shootings. ''Bloody Night Leaves Many in St. Louis Outraged'' read one headline. However,

some of the shooting victims were not outraged enough to cooperate with law enforcement. St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay (photo left) described the “no snitchin’' mentality of many crime victims:

“These are disputes, and there are victims who won't talk to the police,'' the mayor said. “Trying to make an arrest isn’t that simple. In one case, they’ve got (multiple) people shot and not one of them would identify the shooter.”

Slay remarked, “In the vast majority of these cases, people are using their guns to settle their own petty feuds, and that’s really what’s very unfortunate and outrageous about this.” Local news reported on a shooting in a housing complex involving an AK-47 in which “a black male armed with the AK-47 came around the corner [and] started shooting” at an 18-year-old woman and four of her friends. Juanita Sparks, 60, of St. Louis told reporters,''I'm tired of all these damn thugs!''

Aside from the endemic looting in Ferguson, perhaps the most notorious crime to emerge from St. Louis is the “Knockout Game.” According to retired St. Louis Police Sgt. Don Pizzo, the game is simple and brutal: “Normally it was a group of black males, one of which would strike [the victim] as hard as he could in the face, attempting to knock him out with one punch.”

As reported by the local CBS affiliate: “The attacks fit a pattern, Pizzo recalls, black attackers on a white victim – and the victim was often an older person walking alone.”

The Knockout Game has claimed at least six lives so far. In 2011, 72-year oldHoang Nguyenwas walking with his wife, Yen, when four “young people” attacked them''. Yen described how one attacker pushed Hoang’s face to the side to make a ''clear target for his fist.'' Hoang was punched with such force that he fell and struck his head on the ground. Then the attacker turned on Yen, 59, hitting her so hard that the punch broke her eye socket. Yen then watched helplessly as her husband was kicked repeatedly. Hoang died later that day. A young black scumbag male, 18-year old Elex Murphy, was charged with murder. A few months ago he was sentenced to 55 years in jail.

In St. Louis, a special police squad and separate prosecutor were assigned to investigate the Knockout Game and handle the related criminal cases. St. Louis police Maj. Jerry Leyshock called the game “subhuman, antisocial, urban terrorist” behavior. Author Colin Flaherty (photo left) has profiled the problem in his book, ''White Girl Bleed a Lot,''which documents racial violence, including assaulting, intimidating, stalking, threatening, vandalizing, shooting, stabbing, raping and killing, in dozens of cities across America. It shows that the real racism comes from the black community.

Police targeted for ambush:

It is not only civilians who are caught up in the St. Louis area violence. Ferguson protesters have adopted a new unifying chant forsocial justice, whatever that means in the black pea-brained mentally.

“What do we want?”

“Darren Wilson!”

''How do we want him?”

“Dead!”

In June of 2013, a planned ambush of a St. Louis police officer was the highlight of an astonishing news reportabout a night of violence and unusual criminal escapades. Police Maj. Joseph Spiess was in uniform on patrol in an unmarked vehicle. He turned on his lights and siren to follow a suspicious vehicle. The driver refused to stop, and because of rules limiting police pursuits, Spiess stopped following. A short while later, a man approached his car. He described what happened next:

“He looked at me square in the face, wearing a police shirt. He knew who he was shooting at. He absolutely knew I was a policeman.”

Spiess said his attackers set up positions for an ambush.

Political behaviour:

The behavior of St. Louis’ political leadership also has drawn national attention. Last year, City Alderman Freeman Bosley Sr (photo right)found himself under scrutiny after he used his august position to solicit donations to pay his daughter’s college tuition. His letters requesting donations began, “This is Alderman Freeman Bosley Sr., requesting your support once more.” In his defense, Bosley said that “most” of those he contacted “don’t have anything to do with city business.” Bosley told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “Since you made such a stink out of it, I’ll return any money.”

Bosley’s son (a chip off the old deadshit), Freeman Bosley Jr., is a former mayor who engaged in a dubious land deal and had his law licence suspended indefinitely. It's significant that many corrupt black democratic mayors run the worst cities.

Now, after the Ferguson grand jury announced its decision of not indicting Officer Wilson the St. Louis black lowlifes managed to solidify its sinking reputation further. St. Louis is ranked America’s No. 12Most Miserable Cityby Forbes magazine. St. Louis is regularly named as among the mostor themost dangerous citiesin America.

The Way I See It.......I’ve warned many times that the anti-racism movement is becoming as racist as what it claims to oppose. And if black criminal behaviour is a response to white racism, how is it that black crime rates were lower in the 1940s and 50s, when black poverty was higher, racial discrimination was rampant and legal, and the country was more than a half-century away from twice electing a black president?

We have also seen the racist leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, (photo left) going on a fiery tirade about Ferguson last Saturday -- threatening that if demands of protester's aren't met, ''we'll tear this goddamn country apart!'' Farrakhan stated in his speech that violence was justified in response to the decision not to indict Darren Wilson and peaceful protests are only in the interest of ''white folks.''

''We going to die anyway. Let's die for something,'' the radical told the crowd to roaring applause. He even said the parents of teenagers should teach their kids to make and throw Molotov Cocktails. ''Fight!'' he advised, and then imitated throwing the explosive device. He argued that violence was justified by the Law of Retaliation (?). He claims it is in both the Bible and the Koran. Nothing like backing up Victimization with Scripture.

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Chinese philosopher Confucius urged us to ''study the past if you would define the future.''

U.S. author Norman Cousins (photo right) implored us to view history as ''a vast early warning system.'' Even Shirley Bassey belted out, ''I've seen you before and I'll see it again....just little bits of history repeating.''

Whatever your preferred cultural context, the message remains the same. If we don't understand the past and learn from its mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them. So, with this in mind it begs the question, why are religious studies not yet part of the Australian curriculum? Surely it's time to cut through the spin and scaremongering and acknowledge that we can no longer afford to remain theologically ignorant. For millennia, religion has driven social value systems and influenced lawmakers and politicians.

More war and conflict has been raged under the guise of faith than any other reason, from Christian crusades spanning the 11th to 13th centuries to the current Middle Eastern insurgency by Islamic extremist groups. The coming generations must be aware of the profound part religious movements and their influence has played a part in the very world they are living and benefiting in.

While this is true that we we're living in an increasingly secular society, the 2011 census still found almost 80 per cent of Australians declared an affiliation with religious belief. So why is religion only fleetingly touched upon at school and even then, only in later secondary years? A fuller introduction into the Australian curriculum for the sake of knowledge and understanding would be more meaningful.

I am not advocating the introduction of faith-based instruction into secular schools, rather a teaching of religion as a key plank in history, humanities and social science subjects. his is where school students would be encouraged to discuss, dissect and scrutinise religion in all its incarnations objectively and without fear or favour.

Arguments against teaching religion range from the notion we should separate church and state through to concerns young, impressionable minds will be indoctrinated. Caution, scepticism and even suspicion are reasonable responses when it comes to faith and belief but their historical lessons are too important not to be taught.

We need to arm our children with knowledge and understanding if we're to have any hope of achieving global stability in the future. Religion should be taught in schools in a similar manner to politics, also a polarising subject. As politics is taught in a nonpartisan way, so too should religion be taught in a secular fashion with a focus on historical context. Honestly, an unbiased, fact-based religious curriculum would no more likely convert pliable young minds to a particular faith than it would rally them to join the Nazi Party after studying World War II.

As it stands, religion is already taught in many secular schools around the country, albeit in an imperfect form. Most state schools offer weekly or fortnightly religious instruction (RI) classes. These are elective, faith-based and largely delivered by a cohort of unpaid volunteers pushing vested interests. There is no sense of historical or cultural context in these classes, no balance and no fact-based holistic approach to learning.

The opportunity for students to truly learn and understand the influence, scope and power wielded by religion in its many forms is incredibly limited. Religion has also crept into schools under the guise of the federal chaplaincy program, administered by the Christian-affiliated Scripture Union. Quite aside from chaplains filling a role better met by professionally trained social workers and guidance councillors, it introduces a Christian-biased theology into classrooms by stealth. One way to counter this is to teach religion fearlessly and openly in our schools.

A core plank of the Australian curriculum is History, espousing the view historical knowledge is ''fundamental to understanding ourselves and others.'' It also states a solid grounding in global history and equips students for the world in which they live. There is a government review of the history curriculum that will standardise its teaching across all states and weed out the Leftist bias that has been allowed to infiltrate over the years.

The Way I See It.....an objective theology course will allow young minds to study religious diversity locally and nationally. This would include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander spirituality and the several prominent religions such as Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity. It boils down to a very broad unique learning and understanding experience.

We can no longer afford to bury our head in the sand when it comes to a force as dominant and defining and as capable of changing the course of history....as religion.

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

The riot in Ferguson reminds me, I hate criminals, but I hate Leftists more. They planned this riot. They stoked the fire, lied about the evidence and produced a made-to-order riot.

Every other riot I’ve ever heard of was touched off by some spontaneous event that exploded into mob violence long before any media trucks arrived. This time, the networks gave us an actual countdown to the riot, as if it were a Super Bowl kickoff.

From the beginning, Officer Darren Wilson’s shooting of Michael Brown wasn’t reported like news. It was reported like a cause. The media are in a huff about the prosecutor being “biased” because his father was a cop, who was shot and killed by an African-American. What stupidity !

Evidently, the sum-total of what every idiot on TV knows about the law is Judge Sol Wachtler’s 20-year-old joke that a prosecutor couldn't “indict a ham sandwich.” We’re supposed to be outraged that this prosecutor didn’t indict the ham sandwich of Darren Wilson. Left-leaning Liberals seem not to understand that they don’t have a divine right to ruin someone’s life and bankrupt him with a criminal trial, just so they’re satisfied. It's sad that Officer Wilson has resigned from the police force.

The reason most grand jury investigations result in an indictment is that most grand juries aren’t convened solely to patronize racial mobs. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon was basically demanding an indictment of Wilson before Big Mike’s body was cold. It was only because of racial politics that this shooting wasn’t dismissed without a grand jury, at all.

Obama says anger is an “understandable reaction” to the grand jury’s finding. Why? And why — as almost everyone is saying — are we supposed to praise the “peaceful protests”? There’s nothing to protest! A cop shot a thug who was trying to kill him. The grand jury documents make perfectly clear that Big Mike was entirely responsible for his own death. Can’t the peaceful protesters read?

The night of the riot, Obama said the law “often feels as if it is being applied in discriminatoryfashion.” Maybe, but not in this case — except toward Officer Wilson. I know leftists were hoping they had finally found the great white whale of racism, but they’re just going to have to keep plugging away. They might want to come up with a more productive way to spend their time, inasmuch as they’re about 0:100 on white racism sightings.

Anyone following this case has seen the video of Big Mike robbing a store and roughing up an innocent Pakistani clerk (see photo right)about 10 minutes before being shot by Officer Wilson. They’ve seen him flashing Bloods gang signs in photos. Plainly...he was a Thief and a Thug.....no more, no less. They know Brown’s mother was recently arrested for clubbing grandma with a pipe over T-shirt proceeds. They’ve seen the video of Brown’s ex-con stepfather shouting at a crowd of protesters, of course in front of all the media cameras, after the grand jury’s decision: “Burn this bitch down!” These people are not exactly the Salt-of-the-Earth; more like the Scum-of-the-Earth.

Lefties will say none of that is relevant in court, but apparently they don’t think actual evidence is relevant either. It’s certainly relevant in the court of public opinion that the alleged victims are a cartoonishly lower-class, periodically criminal black family that more often than not, will kill their own kind in the hundreds per month. Where's Al Sharpton while this bloody murder is going on?

TV hosts narrated the riot by saying it showed “the community” feels it’s not being listened to. Only those left-leaning liberals look at blacks looting and say, See what white Americans made them do?
That’s their proof of injustice — look at how blacks are reacting! (While I don’t approve of the looting part, I do approve of the whole throwing-bottles-at-CNN part.)

The looters aren’t the community!
The community doesn’t want black thugs robbing stores and sauntering down the middle of its streets ranting and raving obscenities. The community doesn’t want to be assaulted by Big Mike-style Neanderthals. The community didn’t want its stores burned down.

That community testified in support of Officer Darren Wilson. About a half-dozen black witnesses supported Officer Wilson’s version of what happened. One was a black woman, who saw the shooting from the Canfield Green apartments. Crying on the stand, she said, “I have a child and that could have been my son.” And yet, she confirmed all crucial parts of Wilson’s account. She said “thechild”, 292-pound Big Mike (132 kilograms), never had his hands up and the cop only fired when “the baby” was coming at him. “Why won’t that boy stop?” she asked her husband.

I always want to know more about the heroic black witnesses. They are put in a position no white person will ever be in and do the right thing by telling the truth — then go into hiding from “thecommunity” being championed by goo-goo liberals.

White people don’t feel any obligation to defend some thug just because he’s white. Only blacks are expected to lie on behalf of criminals of their own race. But real heroism doesn’t interest leftist liberals. They only ooh-and-ahh over blacks with rap sheets. The only meaningful white racism anymore is the liberal infantilization of black people. Read Jason L. Riley's book, ''Please Stop Helping Us !'', it tells it like it is.The Way I See It.....We now know that Michael Brown was much more of a menace than a martyr, but that won’t stop US leftist liberals from pushing an anti-police narrative that harms the black poor in the name of helping them.

The black teen in Ferguson, Missouri, robbed a store, attacked a white police officer and was shot dead while resisting arrest. That was the conclusion of a St Louis County grand jury that brought no charges against the officer after considering all the physical evidence, along with eyewitness accounts from blacks in the vicinity of the confrontation.

Not that any amount of evidence would have stopped the hooligans in Ferguson this week who were determined to use Brown’s death as a pretext for more bad behaviour. Nor will evidence thwart liberals who are bent on making excuses for black criminality and pretending that police shootings are responsible for America’s high black body count.

Over in the US, Americans are experiencing their coldest series of winters in living memory. "I can't remember and I don't think anyone else can remember this much snow falling in this short a period," said Mark Poloncarz of Erie County in Buffalo New York.

The cold spell has seen temperatures below freezing in all 50 States, killing 21 people and causing transport gridlock. Al Gore should be ecstatic. Tuesday morning this week had the coldest average November temperature across the entire country since 1976, according to meteorology consulting firm, “Weather Bell Analytics”. Apparently it was colder in 1975, so even the title “climate change” itself is a scam.

CNN meteorologist Chad Myers called the phenomenon “thunder snow”. He explained, "The steam from the lakes is still much warmer than the air. The air temperature is in the teens and the water in the 40s. That steam wants to rise. The rise creates a thunder storm but it's so cold it doesn't rain. It just snows."﻿

Amy Godsey, a meteorologist with the state Division of Emergency Management said, “Record-setting lows were expected in northern Florida, with minimums dipping below 20 degrees (Fahrenheit) around Tallahassee and in the Panhandle.”

Climatologist John L. Casey, (photo left) a former space shuttle engineer and NASA consultant, warns that a radical shift in global climate is underway, and that Al Gore and other environmentalists have it completely wrong... it’s actually getting colder. John's written two books on the subject: ''Cold Sun'' and ''Dark Winter'' which describes the reality. Sure, the media jumps on the“global warming” story every time there is a heat wave and each time a hurricane hits the East Coast, but has the world really warmed?

Well, according to NASA’s own data, the world has warmed 0.36 degrees over the past 35 years (they only started measuring the data in 1979 so previous temperatures can’t be compared). Even if they knew what the temperatures were 500 years ago it would have no significance anyway because climate change evolves and varies over tens of thousands of years and has involved ice ages that came, and eventually went due to cyclical warming.

When the last ice age gave way to cyclical “global warming” 15 thousand years ago, surely man wasn’t to be blamed then, was he?. So a 0.36 degree increase in temperature over the past 35 years is hardly something to get too excited about. Granted, that DOES mean the world is warmer, right? Wrong! The trouble with the UN's IPCC modelling is that it is grossly dishonest. It selects dates that that suit its argument i.e. between 1979 and 1998 there was this miniscule degree of warming and that’s the only period they quote.

But ever since then, the planet has actually been cooling!

The reality is this: The world is now 1.08 degrees cooler than it was in 1998. “Remote SensingSystems Ltd”, which provides data to NASA and other scientific organisations confirms this figure. America
has experienced a succession of cooler summers and longer winters. And what the hell is wrong with warming anyway? Cooling is the worry. It’s carbon-induced warming that provides the world with food, try growing veggies in ice. I wonder whether the movie ''The Day After Tomorrow'' had some truth to it.“Global warming” proponents continue to repeat that ocean temperatures are rising. This baseless assumption is made necessary because other baseless forecasts suggest big chunks of ice will melt, killing polar bears and causing States like Florida to suffer inundation. The fact is that 36 out of 38 IPCC's computer predictions were WRONG !

In 2007, while accepting a Nobel Prize for his “global warming” initiative (and quietly pocketing millions of dollars in the process), Al Gore made another outrageous prediction that, “The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff and it could be completely gone seven years from now.”
Well it is now seven years from then, and the latest satellite images show that not only have the icecaps not melted but they have expanded in size by between 43% and 63% with the southern cap expanding to an extent not previously recorded. (See my previous postings)

Here’s what the Globe and Mail article had to say in relation to the northern cap: “An area twice the size of Alaska (America's biggest state) was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice.”
Since 2002, ocean temperatures have fluctuated between -1 and +1 degree. There is no oceanic warming. In fact “climate change” itself is a normal occurrence. If the climate didn’t change we would all be dead inside a year. Everyone knows that, so the title has once again morphed... this time into "man-made climate change".

Al Gore stood on stage blaming us and our “gas-guzzling” cars, standard four bedroom houses, and the local factory for man-made climate change. Of course, the hypocrisy of the claim is that Al Gore himself racks up electricity and gas bills of $30,000 pa... more than 20 times the national average. Bloody hypocrite !

Now, everyone agrees a clean environment is a good thing but humans have not caused any “global warming” and “climate change” is cyclically regulated, as it has been for billions of years, by the earth itself.

Indeed, “global warming” alarmists and their allies in the Left media all agree that anthropogenic

(man-made) “global warming” is real and they rely on the public’s gullibility for acceptance of such a discredited proposition.

There is far too much money involved in the scam for the warmists to admit they have been wrong all along.

President Obama tweeted on May 16, this year that, “97% of scientists agree: Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” John Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of other assholes have also championed this false statistic.

The Wall Street Journal, a newspaper not known for rash statements, reported recently that, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.” It is a fiction because the only studies that are accepted by the corrupt UN'sIPCC are those of climate alarmists. Scientific reports that show the Earth is actually cooling are not accepted and scientists within the Obama Administration who have exposed the truth have suddenly found themselves without a job. Therefore the truth is that 100% of IPCC “scientists” say that climate change is man-made, with 3% deducted so as to appear a realistic figure.

The IPCC is not a scientific body at all, most members are environmental activists and its role is solely to promote the UN’s climate scare because the UN’s very future relies on the billions it receives from willing nations’ taxes on carbon and its involvement in trading carbon credits.One leading climate scientist, Kevin Trenberth (photo left), admitted: “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” A travesty simply because they are worried about losing their government funding.

In another email, Dr. Phil Jones, a leading “global warming” advocate at the UN, admitted that he used “Mike’s Nature trick” in a 1999 graph to “hide the decline” in temperature. Another study by Stephen Goddard who works at “Real Science” revealed just how ridiculous “climate scientists” can get with data manipulation. Here is what he had to say: "The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been 'adjusting' its records by replacing real temperatures with data 'fabricated' by computer models.”
.
Professor Robert Stavins, who helped write the 2014 United Nations Climate Report, revealed to “Breitbart News” that Democrat politicians had demanded he change and edit parts of the report to fit their needs! Honest climate scientists who refuse to be intimidated and coerced into producing false data are publicly pilloried and referred to as quacks, charlatans and senile sceptics and have had their grants cancelled.

The incentive to go along with the climate hoax is monetarily attractive, the disincentive is the risk of losing one’s career.

When further reviews were carried out it was discovered that a mere 1% of scientists are saying human activity is causing climate change. A petition was signed by more than 30,000 enraged independent climate scientists that states,“there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause heating of the Earth's atmosphere and/or disruption to the Earth's climate." Even the founding father of the "man-made global warming" theory, Claude Allegre, (photo right) recently recanted his position by admitting, “The cause of climate change is unknown.”

Back in Australia, Prime Minister Tony Abbott has been trying to convince G20 members of his belief in global warming. I can tell you now that Abbott believes “global warming” is a load of frog droppings but pragmatism rules in international affairs, despite the waste of taxpayers’ money. He skited to France's President Hollande that Australia has a $10 billion Clean Energy Fund, but it is he (Abbott) who is attempting to have it disbanded as a waste of taxpayer funds. Like a similar US fund it apportions money to Green projects that have been dismissed as impractical by commercial financial institutions.

In fact you must first show that the commercial sector has already rejected your proposal before you can qualify for a loan. Of course these ventures end mostly in tears and so far there has been no attempt made to have any loan repaid. It’s more than a little interesting that this Clean Energy Fund of the Gillard government is a carbon copy of Obama’s, with dozens of schemes going broke, yet somehow they are still able to contribute massive sums to Party coffers.

When $500 million in taxpayer money was given to the infamously green and bankrupted US Solyndra company, both investors Goldman Sachs and George Kaiser were still able to ensure $1.25 million of the original $500 million went to Obama’s election campaigns. The same occurred when $400 million was gifted to Abound Solar with large chunks of it finding its way back to the Democrats. A123 Systems received $279 million, much of which funded Democratic Senate campaigns.

The same with First Solar and dozens more smaller green “front” companies. Even the General Electric Company, whose losses in subsidised, unsightly and uneconomic wind farms and other green schemes, helped it to legitimately pay zero tax in 2011. Since Al Gore first dipped his hand in the cookie jar his worth has ballooned to over $100 million through investing in myriad “green-tech” companies, 14 of which received more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants and tax breaks from the Obama Administration.

The Way I See It.....its a shame Australia’s ALP and the Greens have used their Senate numbers to prevent the Abbott Government from disbanding their beloved Clean Energy Fund? Naturally the title “globalwarming” morphed first into “climate change” and then into "man-made" climate change for good reason. It will be fascinating to see what scarey title they come up with next, but the scam of separating taxpayers from their wallets remains the same. All the while these idiots still deny the logic of nuclear energy. There are two things Left leaning Western governments will have to come to terms with sooner or later: Global warming is a hoax. And the sooner the bloody better.

About Me

I live up to my name and speak frankly and for the silent majority so as to counter-balance the leftist, political correctness that pervades my country. I do not hold any legitimate racist feeling against anyone but I will always try to put crossed-referenced information on current events in a proper perspective that will allow for better understanding and discussions among people. My use of colourful language only adds to getting my point across. It's still a free country as far as I can see.
To put more it directly:
Freedom of speech is the paramount freedom. Without it, we struggle to exercise our other freedoms. With it, we can fight for those freedoms. It may be offensive, insulting and make some governments uncomfortable, but if this is the price to be paid for living in a society where all claims are open to question, then it is a price worth paying.
Feel free to join the I.P.A., the Institute of Public Affairs to help preserve the ideal of freedoms we are now enjoying.
Please note: Feel free to make a comment if you find it interesting and/or entertaining.